national news

'Kill zone' just a figure of speech?

Bill O’Reilly needs to settle down.

Mother Jones has written a scathing piece alleging that the Fox News talk show star fibbed about his coverage of the Falklands War in 1982 while he was working for CBS News.

O’Reilly has lashed out — savagely — against Mother Jones and one of the co-writers of the piece, David Corn. He said Corn will end up in the “kill zone. Where he deserves to be.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/oreilly-kill-zone-just-a-slang-expression-202887.html?hp=b2_l1

Corn took the “kill zone” remark badly. Mother Jones editors have demanded an apology. They won’t get one. O’Reilly called it a “figure of speech.”

Oh, that Bill. He’s such a kidder.

I’m still waiting for O’Reilly to prove he actually prowled the battlefield in the Falklands while covering the brief conflict between Great Britain and Argentina. He hasn’t done that. Instead, O’Reilly has lashed out with a barrage of pejorative terms to describe Corn, Mother Jones and — as is his modus operandi — all those on the “loony left” who have criticized his work over many years.

Let’s get to the issue at hand, Bill: Were you on the battlefield — or not?

national news

Father's grief brings criticism of hostage policy

Carl Mueller’s grief is beyond most people’s comprehension.

His daughter, Kayla Jean, was killed in an air strike against her Islamic State captors. Parents aren’t supposed to mourn the loss of their children. Parents throughout the world understand the natural order, and what Carl and Marsha Mueller are experiencing upsets that order.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/slain-us-hostages-dad-slams-us-ransom-policy/ar-BBhR85n

Having laid down that predicate — and stating my own sorrow over Kayla Jean’s death — it is important to put his criticism of longstanding U.S. policy regarding ransom for hostages in some perspective.

Carl Mueller said the U.S. government put policy ahead of his daughter’s safe return.

He believes the government should have paid ransom for her daughter’s release.

“We understand the policy about not paying ransom,” Carl Mueller told “Meet the Press.”

“But on the other hand, any parents out there would understand that you would want anything and everything done to bring your child home. And we tried. And we asked. But they put policy in front of American citizens’ lives.”

Paying ransom every time someone is captured by an enemy, though, puts other Americans at even greater risk. If an enemy knows it can get paid large sums of money whenever it grabs an innocent victim, there can be no limit to the demands the enemy can make.

The U.S. policy that prohibits paying ransom does not make it any easier for those who lose loved ones at the hands of ruthless killers. Carl and Marsha Mueller’s grief is unfathomable.

U.S. no-ransom policy doesn’t diminish the grief we all feel for their horrific loss. The policy, though, is the correct one. Those who commit evil deeds need no additional incentive to exact their terrible vengeance.

 

national news

Does the president love this country? Yes!

The White House has its collective dander up over those goofy remarks by Rudy Guiliani, who this past week said President Obama doesn’t love America.

I’ve commented on this. I won’t take up too much of your time with yet another commentary.

I’ll leave the response to White House press flack Josh Earnest.

“The most high-profile example that I can think of was actually the last line of this year’s State of the Union in which the president said, ‘God bless this country we love,'” Earnest said Friday.

There have been countless other declarations of love of country.

Isn’t Guiliani paying attention?

Oh, I almost forgot. An election year is coming up and he’s got to find something — anything — with which to demonize the president.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/axelrod-i-dont-know-why-there-is-confusion-on-obamas-beliefs/ar-BBhQRSp

national news, political news, religious news

'No religious test' ends this discussion

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

— Article VI, Paragraph 3, U.S. Constitution

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has had a tough time of it in recent days.

He sat in the room when former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani questioned whether President Obama loved America. Walker didn’t refute the ex-mayor’s nonsense.

Then came a question about whether President Obama is a Christian — as if that even is relevant to any discussion about anyone on Earth, let alone the president of the United States. Walker said he didn’t know, offering some lame notion that he’s never discussed Obama’s faith with him.

I hereby refer to the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI. See the above text.

Right there is all the evidence I need that this discussion has no place in today’s political discourse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/21/scott-walker-s-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-answer.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

But yet it keeps coming back, particularly as we reference the current president. Why is that?

Has anyone ever wondered aloud whether any of the men who preceded Obama were Christian? Why didn’t Walker swat that idiotic question aside by saying something like:

“That question is irrelevant. You’ve never asked such a thing of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy … none of them. Barack Obama’s faith is his personal business and the fact that he’s had to speak about it all — and he’s declared his belief in Jesus Christ as his Savior — is because the media and the president’s foes keep bringing it up.

“Next question.”

A president’s faith — or the faith of anyone seeking public office — according to the nation’s founders, is of zero consequence. Does that mean a candidate should necessarily hide his faith from public view? Of course not. Candidates are free to proclaim whatever they wish to proclaim and if their religious faith informs how they set public policy, that should be a factor that voters should consider.

However, the Constitution expressly declares that there should be “no religious test” that candidates for public office must pass.

Let’s focus fully instead on policies that affect people’s lives.

political news, State news

Battleground Texas: They're back … or are they?

Battleground Texas — remember that outfit? — says it’s back in the game.

And the game is its goal of turning Texas from a reliably Red Republican state to a Blue Democratic one.

From my perch here in the heart of the most Republican region of this most Republican state, well, Battleground Texas has some work to do. Lots of work, as a matter of fact.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/21/battleground-texas-optimistic-it-licks-its-wounds/

Battleground Texas seriously oversold its impact on the 2014 midterm election in Texas. As one BT official noted rather pithily, “We got the s*** kicked out of us.”

Yeah. Do ya think? Democrats came nowhere close to winning any of the race they hoped would be competitive. The races for governor and lieutenant governor? They each went Republican by more than 20 percentage points. The Legislature’s GOP majority became even more GOP after the ballots were counted.

Democrats keep saying the demographic trends in Texas are working in their favor, with Hispanics comprising an increasing portion of the state’s population. And, yes, Hispanic voters are much kinder to Democrats than they are to Republicans. The problem, though, is that Hispanic voters, um, don’t turn out in numbers that enable Democrats to turn back the Republican tide.

I’m one who is pulling for Battleground Texas to get its act together. I’ve long wanted Texas to become more competitive. I know what you’re thinking: Sure he does, as he’s one of those lefty types who just cannot stand Republican control over all things political in Texas. Perhaps there’s some truth there.

A more competitive environment builds a bit more honesty, though, in both political parties. It deters the kind of arrogance of power one finds when one party holds such dominance over the other one. What’s more, such deterrence is more conducive to the kind of “good government” that should flourish.

That, I submit, is the result when the parties learn to work together rather than have one party trample the other one in the halls of government, which is exactly what I fear is going to happen with the current session of the Texas Legislature.

So, go for it, Battleground Texas. Here’s a word of advice: Be humble as you seek to rebuild and don’t over-promise what you can’t deliver.

 

International news, national news

Vigilance required … even right here

If the 9/11 attacks more than a dozen years ago taught Americans anything it all, they should teach us to be on high alert no matter where we live and what we’re doing.

Thus, warnings to mall shoppers have gone out across the country in the wake of a threat made against The Mall of America by an al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Shabaab.

Yes, that means Westgate Mall in little ol’ Amarillo, Texas.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/21/us/al-shabaab-calls-for-mall-attacks/index.html

Al-Shabaab has threatened to strike malls in three western countries. Department of Homeland Security officials take the threat seriously. The Mall of America is in Minneapolis, which is home to a large Somali immigrant population. The Twin Cities region also reportedly has produced many recruits who’ve signed up to fight with Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.

Make no mistake, these threats go right to the heart of where we need to be alert. Malls represent — to many people around the world — some elements of American excess. Americans, of course, do not see it that way, nor should we. Do we stop doing business at these places just because a terrorist group has leveled a threat? Of course not.

But these monstrous organizations have shown how seriously the world must take their threats.

The 9/11 assault should stand as proof that these organizations mean business.

 

entertainment news

Here's a vote for Bradley Cooper

Five men are competing for an acting award tonight that is going to draw more than the usual amount of attention.

I’ve got my favorite and I’ll declare right here: I want Bradley Cooper to win the Oscar for Best Actor.

Am I an expert on films? Hardly. Do I know enough about acting techniques to make an educated assessment of who should win? Not even close.

I haven’t even seen all the performances. But I’ve seen “American Sniper,” the film that stars Cooper as the late Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL sniper credited with 160 “kills” while serving four tours in Iraq.

OK, so my wish for Cooper to win the Oscar isn’t even as educated as it should be. But I have heard the debate about the film and have come to my own conclusion about it: To my way of thinking, “American Sniper” does not glorify war; it does not endorse a war policy, nor does it condemn it. The film tells a gripping story about a young man who signed up to fight for his country, did his duty and struggled with the terrible — but lawful — orders he was required to carry out.

“American Sniper” is an important film that has drawn considerable comment from those on the left and the right.

This weekend, I had a conversation with a retired Amarillo police officer who’s also seen the film. He was highly critical of the “far left wackos” who’ve criticized the movie. My friend tilts to the right; I tilt to the left, although I don’t consider myself to be a far left wacko. I tried to calm my friend down a bit by reminding him that the wackos to whom he refers don’t necessarily represent mainstream progressive thinkers.

Indeed, I’ve been critical of some of those critics — such as filmmaker Michael Moore, who labeled snipers as “cowards.”

My former cop friend thinks the left-leaning motion picture academy will be highly reluctant to support Cooper for Best Actor Oscar because of the content of the film.

I remain cautiously optimistic that my friend has it wrong.

Would I think differently if I had seen all the actors’ performances under consideration? That’s a hypothetical question, so I cannot answer it.

I’ll just stand by my hope that Bradley Cooper tonight wins the Oscar.

 

national news, State news

When did we realize these bans were illegal?

A question comes to mind regarding the recent spate of court rulings against statewide bans on same-sex marriage.

The 14th Amendment, which includes the “equal protection clause,” was ratified in 1868. Why has it taken until just the recent past to realize that equal protection means all citizens are guaranteed such protection under the law?

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2015/02/texas-judge-rules-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

A Travis County probate judge recently ruled that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Judge Guy Herman “ruled the state’s ban violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment,” according to the San Antonio Express-News.

The amendment has been on the books for 147 years! Only now has the issue come up as a reason to ban same-sex marriage.

It is true that gay couples have been largely hidden from public view for most of the history of the Republic. We didn’t have “gay pride rallies” at the turn of the 20th century, let alone in the middle of the 19th century. Same-sex couples lived in the shadows. They didn’t get married. They simply lived together, which was their right to do — except in some states, such as Texas, where it was actually illegal for same-sex couples (notably men) to be intimate; our state enforced something called an “anti-sodomy law” until it, too, was ruled unconstitutional.

So here we are now. Courts are ruling left and right that states cannot violate a civil right written into the U.S. Constitution just three years after the end of the Civil War.

It took us awhile to get to this point. But we’ve arrived. Finally.

 

national news

O'Reilly, Williams put media under the scope

Yes, there’s actually a lot of good that can come from the controversies surrounding two prominent broadcast journalists.

It is that the media — both print and broadcast — have been put on high alert to be sure they’re telling the truth and leave no doubt to their readers, viewers and listeners.

The world is watching. Carefully.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/oreilly-kill-zone-just-a-slang-expression-202887.html?hp=b2_l1

* Brian Williams of NBC News has suspended without pay for six months. His transgression? “Misremembering,” which is what he calls it, an event in which he reported being shot down by a rocket in Iraq in 2003. It didn’t happen that way, despite Williams’s telling of the tale. His credibility is in tatters and likely is damaged beyond repair.

* Now comes a blistering report that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly allegedly misrepresented his reporting from the 1982 Falklands War fought between Britain and Argentina. O’Reilly has said repeatedly he reported from the remote island battlefields. Mother Jones magazine has challenged O’Reilly’s assertion, to which O’Reilly — as is his style — responded by calling the writer David Corn a “guttersnipe” and a liar. A former colleague at CBS, where O’Reilly was working at the time, also has challenged Bill O’s account of where he was during that brief war. This one isn’t over.

Throughout all of this has been an interesting analysis of how the media do their job.

The U.S. Constitution protects the media from government interference, so there cannot be a government policing arm established to ensure the media tell the truth. That has to come from within the industry. And within all broadcast and cable news networks, as well as all print organizations, there must be some serious in-house discussions taking place to ensure that everyone who reports the news does so with impeccably.

There can be no doubt about the truth of what’s being reported.

The good that comes from all this tempest and tumult must be that journalists of all stripes are put on notice that the world is watching them with keen eyes and is tuning in with ears that hear everything.

***

Williams is unlikely to return to his anchor desk at NBC. As for O’Reilly and his career at Fox, well, stay tuned for that one. O’Reilly is always — always! — ready to unload against his accusers. He’ll just have to answer one question: Can you prove you were in the middle of the fight? If so, then let’s see the proof.

 

national news

Listen to Texas lawmakers on DHS funding

Dear Members of Congress:

Your Texas colleagues are speaking wisdom that you need to hear.

Do not play politics with funding the Department of Homeland Security. Doing so, according to Rep. Michael McCaul, puts the nation at a serious national security risk.

Do you understand that? Do you understand what it means to use DHS funding as a political football?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/20/lawmakers-toying-dhs-funding-dangerous-game/

Let’s all understand something. Some of you are angry with President Obama’s decision to grant temporary amnesty for several million illegal immigrants. Others of you support the president’s decision.

Those of you who oppose Obama’s executive action, however, are signaling a serious breach in our national security network if you cut money out of DHS just because you’re mad at the president.

McCaul, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee in the House, said it well: “The terrorists are watching and the drug cartels are watching, and anytime we play politics with funding a national security agency, it’s a dangerous game to play,” McCaul told the Texas Tribune. “It’s a sign of weakness in our government.”

I get that McCaul, a Republican, is fingering Senate Democrats for this standoff. Both sides are to blame here.

Republicans have added amendments to the DHS funding bill that takes aim at Obama’s executive order. Democrats oppose it and the Senate has held up the funding because of that opposition.

So, who’s playing politics with our national security? I’m casting a plague on both political parties.

A lot of border-state lawmakers are concerned enough to send up warning signals.

Congress must not defund a national security agency because of petulance over a presidential order.

Don’t endanger the nation by cutting off money for the agency whose mission is to protect “the homeland.”

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience